Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Sunder Transport And Anr. vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner on 4 September, 1992
12. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to and relied upon the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Pratap Press. etc. v. Their Workmen reported in (1960) I LLJ 497 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunder Transport & Anr. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1992 II CLR 977 and the judgment of this Court in case of Ebrahim Currim & Sons v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. (1994) I LLJ 369. If appears to be that the respondent is well supported by the ratio of judgments of this case.
Ebrahim Currim And Sons vs Regional P.F. Commissioner And Anr. on 4 February, 1993
13. It appears to me that the basic questions of clubbing of different establishments is required to be decided having regard to the facts of each case after applying the various tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this court in various judgments. In this regard I am of the opinion that the trial Court has applied the relevant tests and has drawn its own inferences in support of its view that the different shops, the central offices and the two godowns cannot be considered as one establishment. It appears from para 12 of the judgment of the trial Court that the trial Court has also recorded an alternate finding from one another angle. The trial Court has observed that the godowns could not be equated with the shops. The trial court has observed that the different shops could not be clubbed with one another. The trial Court has, however, held that even if the central office and the godowns could be clubbed together, the number of employees working in the central office and the two godowns at the material time were less than 20 and on that count also the central office and the godowns could not be covered under the Act. To my mind the judgment under appeal is substantially correct. This appeal does not this involve any substantial question of law.
The Associated Cement Companies ... vs Its Workmen & Another on 5 May, 1959
11. Before I wind up the discussion it is necessary to refer to some of the authorities cited at the bar. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court being judgment dated 13th July, 1994. In appeal no. 732 of 1993 in Writ Petition No. 931 of 1989. The learned counsel for the appellant has in particular relied on para 3 of the said judgment. Having regard to the facts of the case before the Division bench, the Division Bench of this Court took the view that the transport business carried on at the principal office as well as at branches was totally inter-dependent. In this case, the Division Bench of our Court reached conclusion that the nature of business conducted by Respondent no. 1 in this appeal was such that it could not be carried only at the establishment at Andhra Pradesh without the dependent on the branch office. In this case it is not possible to state that the business at each of the shops in question cannot be carried without the dependents on other shops. In my opinion the ratio of this judgment, with respect has no applicability to the facts briefed in this case.
Section 1 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 75 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
1